Re The sovereignty of the Indian nations is a critical Native value [continuation]

NOTE BY HUNTER BEAR:  FEBRUARY 1 2009

Yesterday, I posted my piece "The sovereignty of the Indian nations in a critical Native value."  It went
initially to both the Marxist and the Redbadbear list -- and I then sent it to a few others.  My always good
friend, Sam Friedman, responded -- as always sharply in thought and well expressed, I responded etc.  I
think it's well worth posting Sam's comments and mine on the other lists which received my initial post.

[As a personal aside, I should add that, the other day [King Day], I spoke to a group here in Idaho on the
Southern Movement -- with some inclusion of the Native dimension -- and I did so for three straight hours
[including good questions.]  Not bad for someone whose second grade teachers tried to railroad him into an
institution for mentally challenged people simply because I never talked.  More to the point, that stint
and a number of other things are indicative of the fact that my now almost six year struggle with systemic
lupus sees my now outrunning That.  I mention this because most on all of these lists are aware of this long fight.

H.

SAM FRIEDMAN:

Hunter and I have discussed this issue before on these lists, and I am well
aware of his far superior depth of understanding of Native tribes and
cultures.

There seems to me to be a weakness in Hunter's argument--albeit a weakness that
might not seem to be of enormous immediate relevance--although one can hope.

Hunter's argument here is that the tribe is sovereign, and thus that US labor
laws should not apply.

Now in the USA or other countries, one of the implications of national
sovereignty (in theory--though not in practice) is that svereignty means that if